Jerry Jackson: It's all about money

The smart money bets The Supreme Court will in some form rule against DOMA.

Jerry Jackson

Now that the Supremes have had two days of hearing on gay marriage, it is time to let their wisdom percolate for a few months and give some rest for us poor souls.

Never before have I seen the absolute bombardment from the biased media as on this issue of gay marriage. In perusing the network news, the local TV news, publications of all kinds, you would believe there is only one side. Sobbing lesbians and lovers who can’t be fulfilled dominate the airwaves.

Talk about propaganda – just recall the TV programs, the movies and novels that have been released recently. Without fail the gays and lesbians are always portrayed as heroic or innocent victims. Don’t you think it might be appropriate to have one fictional gay villain? Not on your life.

One very important exception – on March 27th the Arkansas House passed a resolution in support of DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act). This law defines marriage as between a man and a woman and has been the law of the land since congress passed it and President Clinton signed the legislation.

Lost in all the emotion is the very important economic reason why marriage should remain to be between one man and one woman. Our population growth is minimal at best, and if we continue to support and promote both abortion and gay marriage, there will continue to be a shortage of ‘youngans’ to provide Social Security, Medicare and all other entitlements to the old codgers who are living longer and longer.

Yes, our government gives certain tax and economic breaks to married men and women just as they give similar breaks to those having children. Unless we use some type of surrogate parenthood or artificial insemination, man is still unable to get around God’s method of continuing life on this planet – that being procreation. Up until now the common belief is that society in general has benefited by this type of life creation.

A plea that you hear so often is that junior having two moms or two daddies should be an acceptable way to raise a family. If this be true, why shouldn’t a family unit of two women and one man or three men be just as acceptable for a modern family? In these tough economic times three or four adults should be able to provide more easily for economic needs.

I have heard numerous complaints that gays and lesbians are discriminated against when serious illness strikes one of the partners. Comments are made that hospitals frown on homosexual partners having visitation rights the same as husbands and wives - not so for the hospitals I have contacted. The related complaint is that gay and lesbian mates are not granted the right to make decisions on life support issues. Again, a very simple solution. A living will designating the surviving partner handles this quietly and effectively.

The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court stated in the Obamacare case that he was unwilling to overturn the law of the land (Obamacare) that had been dutifully passed by our legislatures. Using this logic how could the Supreme Court overturn DOMA which as been passed by congress and signed by the president? Especially when every time gay marriage has been up for a vote, every one of 31 states has said no. In the few states where gay marriage has been approved it has been by judicial fiat or legislative action.

This brings us to the real reason – it’s all about money. In the media, when the Supremes were hearing arguments on gay marriage, the heroine was a surviving lesbian who had to pay around 350 thousand dollars inheritance taxes.

Under present laws a surviving spouse of the opposite sex does not pay inheritance tax until the latter spouse dies. The gay and lesbian crowd wants this tax loophole. The media has portrayed this heroine as broke and unable to pay this inheritance tax. No one asks this question: If the tax was $350,000, this heroine received assets of at least $700,000 so why is she unable to pay this tax?

Another political aspect of ‘it’s all about money’ refers to Democrat leaders and their rush to support gay marriage. Why do you suppose Barrack Obama, Joe Biden and now Hillary Clinton as well as others on the liberal side have recently changed their positions and declared their support? The answer – gays and lesbians as a group control significant wealth, the Democrats were not getting those funds until the recent conversion by Obama, Biden, Clinton, etal. Remember it was Hillary’s husband who signed the Defense of Marriage Act.

The smart money bets The Supreme Court will in some form rule against DOMA. Most Republicans seem unwilling to push back. Modern society is trying to make those who believe in traditional marriage to be bigots and out of step.

If the Supremes do rule for gay marriage, I have one request – can we then have peace? Can we then disperse of vulgar demonstrations, save us from gay rights parades that are gross, and from Disney Land and other facilities proclaiming special days that result in disgusting displays.

And how about a little respect for those of us who believe in traditional marriage. We certainly have this right without being vilified as bigoted. Are we really entering a phase where gay marriage is the norm and we are the villains?